Villette is my favorite: it destroyed me the first time I read it, I've never been so affected by a book before. Wuthering Heights is probably next (you're right that the character names are absolutely maddening, though), but I'm currently rereading Jane Eyre and absolutely loving it so we'll see. I have to reread The Tenant of Wildfell Hall because the pacing was entirely thrown off by the book description and so I don't think I really got a real feel for it the first time around. I'll probably reread Agnes Grey at some point too since it's so sweet, though I don't imagine it will shoot to the top of the list...

The only two that I didn't love (and will probably not reread, at least not anytime soon) are The Professor and Shirley.

> mainly because it does show more that Jane is not going to follow someone blindly.

Yep, I think this is exactly the point of the third volume. She said no to Rochester because she felt marrying him was immoral, but she also says no to St John because she doesn't love him. She has principles and is no pushover.

I liked it, but I like reading about deeply flawed characters. Eleanor isn't an easy character, but she felt three-dimensional and was easy to empathize with.

I also appreciated that the author gave her real personality issues (and fairly unusual ones at that) instead of making her mostly perfect with a token "flaw" that isn't actually that important in the name of believability, which seems to be the approach that many contemporary authors take.

"Realistically," it all depends on what legal standards are being applied. I'm unfamiliar with nineteenth century English law and am too lazy to try to look it up.

But given that you say the charge treats the monster as a human child, I think your strongest argument is probably going to be that the monster isn't human and therefore the charge doesn't apply. "It" is a scientific experiment created by Frankenstein, not a natural person (in fact, it's decidedly unnatural). Frankenstein gets off on a technically. He probably would have some liability for his creation, at least in most jurisdictions of the modern US, but the prosecution should have covered their bases and been more careful with the charges.

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to, except that I know it was pretty common in nineteenth century lit.

When CS Lewis died he was considered one of the most well-read persons of his time.

>..but anyone felt similarly?

You are far, far from the only person who thinks art in general and reading specifically is too much effort and a waste of time because it's not "practical." In fact, I imagine it's the dominant view.

>often the writers step in so much with their words, expressions and writing habits so I can feel ‘humans’ hiding in the background very easily.

What you seem to be describing is authorial voice and good prose. For literary readers, that's a major draw of reading—it's the literary equivalent of enjoying acting and beautiful drawings in movies and television shows.

It wasn't. I don't think any of Austen's novels were serialized.

>She also tended to skip over the marriage portion of her marriage plots and ended on the engagement with a quick aside about the wedding

Honestly I think this is the biggest reason: she generally ends her novels pretty abruptly, so it's no surprise that NA is the same. Once the couple gets engaged, the book is basically over.

In a typical office setup it actually makes a ton of sense to put your bookcase behind you. It's out of the way but easily accessible. For example, my office at work has my bookcase immediately behind me and it's full of the code books and legal reference guides and project binders etc.

I don't have a dedicated room for a home office, but if I did I'd set it up the same way.

>So what is this app really for?

Different people use it for different things. I've posted before on some of the lesser-known features Goodreads has and how I use the site.

I get most of my recommendations from BookTube, podcasts, and r/suggestmeabook.

I read just enough to figure out that it's a sentimental feel-good piece of faux intellectualism designed to dazzle the reader with "profound" aphorisms and quirky caricatures that can be comfortably discussed at book club over glasses of white wine....so this ending doesn't surprise me at all.

I made an entire post on booktubers who read mainly classics.

Short answer is that they exist so college students can read a book with the benefit of foresight and someone else's analysis and immediately jump to a level of analysis that would otherwise not be accessible until a second or third or more rereading.

Personally I think this is a terrible way to experience literature as it largely removes a reader's ability to analyze whether the novel is successful at maintaining tension and the element of surprise, while also biasing the reader toward certain interpretations. But some people don't have the time or are just intellectually lazy and want the easy way out.

(They also unfortunately perpetuate the idea that classic literature can't be spoiled because they're not meant to be entertaining, they're meant to be studied, and anyone who is looking for entertainment is just not intellectual enough for classics....but let's leave that for another day.)

A Kindle seemed like an unnecessary luxury item until I was gifted one a few years ago. Now I couldn't live without it. I do so much more reading thanks to easy access public domain and library ebooks, and I vastly prefer the Kindle reading experience to paper books.

A used older model Paperwhite is under $100.....though I say go for it and get the newest model new, if you hate it then Amazon has a generous return policy. Be sure to get a case (people on r/Kindle say the kids bundle is the best value).

I'm with you. Entertaining enough, but badly written and way too long.

I saw someone mention that it's a book that feels very specifically Reddit-y in its humor, and I think that largely explains the popularity here. To boot, it's a very easy read with absolutely nothing going on below the surface (ie, it's very straightforward when it comes to the main character's emotions, which are not especially complex). And, of course, there's the fact that it fulfills the perfect fantasy of the main character >!saving the entire world and then making a huge selfless "sacrifice"—which is actually anything but—to also save his friend!<.

I've often seen it called a "book hangover."

>I have yet to encounter one that wouldn't be better summed up as a handful of powerpoint slides or a wiki page etc

This is true in the most literal sense as unlike many other types of nonfiction, self-help has absolutely no literary value (as a general rule). The ideas have only been compiled into written form because that is the most convenient way of selling them to people.

I love The Blue Castle! Read it earlier this year for the first time and it was an instant favorite. Maybe a bit of a soap opera with all the convenient twists and coincidences, but I just love it. The characterization is great and the nature writing is beautiful.

Not to turn this into a recommendation thread, but you might also like Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier, The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson, and Jane Eyre and Villette by Charlotte Brontë, which have similar main characters and also really gorgeous prose.

I read this about a year ago and really liked it. I think it helps to look at it as a coming-of-age story and not a romance: Cassandra is 17, fairly sheltered, and in love for the first time. Of course she doesn't know how to handle the situation and is constantly mistakes! The novel is all about her overcoming those mistakes and growing as a person, which is demonstrated when she refuses both Stephen (because it wouldn't be fair to him) and Simon (because it wouldn't be fair to her). After all, she wasn't in love with Stephen (probably because he's basically her brother) and so was right to turn him down.

Perhaps a bit unsatisfying if you were expecting a romance novel, but it felt like the perfect ending to me as, in the spirit of a true bildungsroman, it shows exactly how Cassandra has come face-to-face with reality and is a stronger person for it. (She's also still incredibly young with her whole life before her.)

Take it up with OP then lol, I said I haven't read the book.

>but the website still insists that they are "acceptable" or "good" quality. It seems a bit too good to be true

You should read their description of what those terms mean. They will be readable, but will probably not look very pretty and will likely have notes and highlighting.

Takeaway: people really don't like criticism of "The Magic Mountain." (For the record, I've never read it and don't plan to.)

OP, you would probably enjoy what one of my favorite Goodreads reviewers has to say about the book.

>I'm perfectly aware that many sequels are made almost entirely due to pleasing the audience.

I think you're pretty severely underestimating how difficult and time-consuming it is to write a novel. Few authors are going to write a sequel if they're not super passionate about it.

>If you don't like a book you give it a 2star, but 1star was literally made for books you don't like.

I think this is actually the crux of the issue: 1 star is for books you dislike. Dislike is an active negative feeling, not simply the lack of a positive feeling.

2 stars is for books that are "okay" and fall in that gray are between "dislike" and "like."